I-frames don’t need to be in Ashes, dodge should be a close quarters reposition tool that just barely takes you out of melee range.
If it doen't have iframe that feels like a potential red flag only because you also say barely takes you out of melee range. What melee range are we talking about? What is considered to be the melee range in AoC 2 feet, 15 feet?
If we are considering basic attack range skills and such will most likely hit you and dodge is pretty much a wasted input that does nothing in the game. If we are basing things off the range of skills and you can get a good amount of distance you could say (barely out of melee range) but you are still getting good distance and movement which is more than base speed.
Again dodge should create distance and have speed.
What is the combat Rythm like, what is the distance on attacks and skills, the speed at which you use abilities there are a lot of answer that are needed to be understood before one can judge the strength and distance of a dodge as per class.
I-frames don’t need to be in Ashes, dodge should be a close quarters reposition tool that just barely takes you out of melee range.
I believe that their intentions for I-frames were related to the fact that they have skills that are ground-target and Tab Target in ways that might otherwise feel unbalanced.
By adding a few movements with some iFrames (for example, the startup of a Fighter's leaping gap closer) they could deal with some of the more annoying and obvious ranged character counterplays without needing to weaken ranged skills.
I'd definitely prefer if the DODGE had none, but due to the way gap closers and certain very committed abilities work, I'd prefer for them to have some. If you 'use your Grand Crash' just to iFrame an attack I think it's fine. I'd particularly WANT Fighters to be able to do this, like if they get surrounded and body-blocked in, somehow, and want to get OUT of that space instead of using Whirlwind.
Which fits perfectly with Blindside's concern.
For me, iFrames at the startup of big committed gap-closers are fine. For Rangers I'd be fine with some being on the startup of a big back-moving attack as long as that attack has a high mana cost and cooldown and so on.
For various reasons as a Cleric I would also take 'iFrames that don't move me' on the startup of AoE heal, because it helps to even out TTK and prevent 'group healing' from being something that has to always be perfectly planned in a clash so that it 'can't be sniped'.
Generally I support having a bit of them on anything that a solo player has to set up so much that it is obvious they're going to do it, but I don't believe in having those related to movement, so the OP point still stands. Being able to stun/kill people out of 'things they have to put effort into telegraphing' just feels bad because players just stop using them as they get better, or those moves are made even MORE powerful.
I'd rather they just have the few iFrames.
I think there could be more done with universal defensives that don’t involve an I-frame.
But it also involves offensive skills not being generic either.
Though i feel there some be some i frames im fine with less and for distance to be more so used to avoid dmg. Iframe spam gets ugh when people chain them constantly.
I-frames don’t need to be in Ashes, dodge should be a close quarters reposition tool that just barely takes you out of melee range.
If it doen't have iframe that feels like a potential red flag only because you also say barely takes you out of melee range. What melee range are we talking about? What is considered to be the melee range in AoC 2 feet, 15 feet?
If we are considering basic attack range skills and such will most likely hit you and dodge is pretty much a wasted input that does nothing in the game. If we are basing things off the range of skills and you can get a good amount of distance you could say (barely out of melee range) but you are still getting good distance and movement which is more than base speed.
Again dodge should create distance and have speed.
What is the combat Rythm like, what is the distance on attacks and skills, the speed at which you use abilities there are a lot of answer that are needed to be understood before one can judge the strength and distance of a dodge as per class.
I-frames don’t need to be in Ashes, dodge should be a close quarters reposition tool that just barely takes you out of melee range.
I believe that their intentions for I-frames were related to the fact that they have skills that are ground-target and Tab Target in ways that might otherwise feel unbalanced.
By adding a few movements with some iFrames (for example, the startup of a Fighter's leaping gap closer) they could deal with some of the more annoying and obvious ranged character counterplays without needing to weaken ranged skills.
I'd definitely prefer if the DODGE had none, but due to the way gap closers and certain very committed abilities work, I'd prefer for them to have some. If you 'use your Grand Crash' just to iFrame an attack I think it's fine. I'd particularly WANT Fighters to be able to do this, like if they get surrounded and body-blocked in, somehow, and want to get OUT of that space instead of using Whirlwind.
Which fits perfectly with Blindside's concern.
For me, iFrames at the startup of big committed gap-closers are fine. For Rangers I'd be fine with some being on the startup of a big back-moving attack as long as that attack has a high mana cost and cooldown and so on.
For various reasons as a Cleric I would also take 'iFrames that don't move me' on the startup of AoE heal, because it helps to even out TTK and prevent 'group healing' from being something that has to always be perfectly planned in a clash so that it 'can't be sniped'.
Generally I support having a bit of them on anything that a solo player has to set up so much that it is obvious they're going to do it, but I don't believe in having those related to movement, so the OP point still stands. Being able to stun/kill people out of 'things they have to put effort into telegraphing' just feels bad because players just stop using them as they get better, or those moves are made even MORE powerful.
I'd rather they just have the few iFrames.
I think there could be more done with universal defensives that don’t involve an I-frame.
But it also involves offensive skills not being generic either.
Though i feel there some be some i frames im fine with less and for distance to be more so used to avoid dmg. Iframe spam gets ugh when people chain them constantly.
I do not want to live through ESO dodge roll spam again. I really think that for dodge to be an actual and proper dodge, that there needs to be some meaning on the skills that they're dodging as well.
If Ashes can have the best combat in the MMO market, why not push for something non-generic and well thought out?
Not to mention I keep in mind that theres limited skills so all of the actions available to a player need to be thought out and meaningful. iFrames and generic gap closers are not meaningful button presses.
I can link a few clips of me fighting outnumbered in Guild Wars 2 PvP. Can you tell me what you think about the style of kiting shown? If you are not familiar with the skills, GW2 dodges can't be used to create meaningful distance as they travel slightly further (less than 10%) than a player could run in the same amount of time. Yet, there are plenty of movement abilities, teleports, and movement buffs/impairing effects granted to every class. I think this system has a low skill floor and high skill ceiling. And, gear is equalized so winning comes down to execution and knowledge of the game.
Since Guild Wars 2 has a hybrid tab/action style combat that Ashes is trying to do, I'm curious what you think about the clips above. This is a game with equalized dodge rolls (no diminishing returns) where distance control is possible on every class against multiple opponents at the same time when played well. It's also very balanced as any class can beat any class in 1v1 or 1vX as long as you play better than your opponent(s).
Yeah looks like fun combat-
From your explanation and the clips you posted, its really not all that different from what I suggested.
The main differences between that and what I proposed is that-
1. Rolling isnt optimal for travel
2. The roles of abilities and movement are reversed
in terms of distance manipulation vs distance maintanence
#1 Rolling as a situationally optimal form of travel (whether or not this is good or bad in my opinion is dependent on how rolls are designed.)
A) if dodges are not punishable on reaction
If this is the case then I think it could be a good thing to allow for rolling be situationally optimal- to have a more viable way of safely moving forward, which would be less how it would work if basic movement is more optimal for travel, since basic movement would then outpace someone who is using rolls as a safe pursuit option- forcing them to use basic movement to keep relative distance control while progressing forward- which would be more risky to an aggressive player due to the neccessity of timing blocks/rolls as they move forward with basic movement- rather than being able to keep pace while still being defensive, through using an forward roll.
Yes, allowing for rolls to be situationally optimal for movement would make timing/risk less required in order to move forward in a defensive way- however, this would then become equal and balanced to the level of timing/risk required to deny space in a defensive way using a traditional hitbox design (the ability to counter aggressive movement with a stationary swing)- and this would be healthy to the pacing of the combat through better balancing aggressive and passive styles. If there is going to be a skill check to pushing forward safely (through using basic movement and timing a defensive option), then this needs to be reproduced in the defensive denial of space (hitbox design), otherwise the combat pacing will be sub-optimal.
B- If dodges are punishable on reaction
If the rolls are punishable on reaction then there would be too great of a risk to design them as the optimal forward movement option, otherwise the viability of aggressive styles would be reduced- of which, at that point yeah it would be better to design basic movement as optimal forward movement (which could be yout less than 10% idea potentially) but I think this would still be inferior to a dodge that cannot be punished on reaction, and is situationally optimal for forward movement- while avoiding dodge spam through having diminishing returns for both combatants (if there is equalized dodging) or diminishing returns for just the retreating combatant (if there is unequalized dodging)- which would depend on the aggregate gap closing design/relationship with other combat movement options/skills.
#2 The time spent on closing/creating gaps vs maintaining relative distance
This one isn't really a huge deal, its more of a minor difference of whether or not the focus is on maintining relative distance with rolls and closing/creating relative gaps with abilities- vs. if the focus is on closing/creating relative gaps with movement/rolls and maintaing relative distance with abilities.
This only really effects the emphasis of the gameplay on disadvantage/advantage state vs neutral state. If gap closing is tied to abilities, then since they are temporarily available you spend less time playing neutral than maintaining your advantage state with equalized rolls/movement- vs unequalized movement/rolls being capable of gap closing, which since they are always available would emphasize neutral state, with equalized abilities being your temporary means of maintaining advantage state.
So even though that does look fun, I feel like conceptually there are some improvements that could be made to that system.
Im just going to state again saying dodge should be same as base movement speed means dodge instance does not create space, he has said this multiple times through the post.
It depends on what you mean by "does not create space".
A- If you mean that it literaly does not move your character that would be a false conclusion, because both basic movement and dodge could propel the character forward but at an equal rate.
B- If you mean "does not create space" in terms of relative to the opponent who is using a different type of movement- then yes, he would like rolls to provide other benefits instead of being the best way to travel- because he is saying that dosges as an optimal means of travel results in dodges being neccessary for pursuing fleeing enemies, in situations where there is no other movement option available that is more effective at traveling than dodges are.
C- If you mean "does not create space" in terms of relative to the opponent when they use the same option- then that is being discussed at the moment.
Again- the merits of these are not solely based on overall balance, it is about the type of experience each of these things provide.
again saying dodges same distance as running and a running player can walk to them as they dodge. That means no distance is created from dodge. Unsure why you are defending him actually saying that in your post it is exactly why he couldn't respond to my points....
"A running player can walk to them" not sure what this means, do you mean he can stop running and then walk? If so, not sure how you can reach that conclusion because he didn't commnent on the dodge speed relative to walking unless I missed it. He only commented on the dodge speed relative to running.
So in terms of dodge speed relative to running, yes he did say that running should be more optimal than dodging for covering distances, which implies you should be able to catch a player who dodges if you are sprinting after them. Unless I misunderstand your stance, you believe this makes dodge useless which is false for a couple of reasons:
1. There are other properties of evasive options other than distance traveled, such as invincibility frames for example, to give that evasive options a meaninful evasive purpose
2. There are different forms of "distance covered"- to where yeah a dodge could be irrelevant over a long distance, but it could still be the optimal movement option for a quick burst of distance coverage, only to then fall behind sprint in distance covered as soon as the endlag kicks in- this is all based on the frame data
These are points to clarify what the actual topic is, not neccesarily who is right/wrong
What does punishable on reaction mean? If you say the dodge is punishable on reaction, does that mean it can be punished if you dodge poorly (ie. dodge for no reason, wasting one of your dodges)?
In Guild Wars 2, if someone wastes a dodge, I can time an ability to hit them the instant their evade frames end due to the way the animation time of the dodge (.75s) lines up with or is slightly longer than the animation time of most offensive abilities in the game (.5s-.75s). However, if someone dodges an impactful skill, they get a lot of defensive value out of it. It's a good system that rewards proper skill usage.
Also, most classes in GW2 have 2 dodges. It's an endurance (stamina) system where you can regen enough resource to dodge every 10s with the base regen speed. They have experimented with 1 dodge classes and 3 dodge classes multiple times over the years. 1 dodge is way too easy to punish because the instant they use it, you can pressure them hard after and force other defensive cooldowns extremely quickly. 3 dodges is too difficult to punish because they will almost always have a dodge available so it's difficult to find windows to punish them unless you can force at least 2 dodges out of the way before you commit. 2 dodges is the sweet spot.
One aspect of dodging in combat that no one has brought up yet, is that it's actually bad to roll offensively if the movement is too far. For example:
With dodge rolls moving a farther distance:
You are in melee range of your attacker.
They use a high damage/crowd control ability.
You roll through them to avoid it but your roll moves you too far and now you're out of range to counterattack unless you can close the distance. (not ideal, feels clunky)
An example of this is GW2 daredevil's dodge. Their dodge travels a farther distance, so after they dodge away, they can only follow up with a ranged attack or a gap closer.
With dodge rolls moving a similar distance to base move speed (ie. GW2 dodge system):
You are in melee range of your attacker.
They use a high damage/crowd control ability.
You roll through them to avoid it but you're in range to counterattack. (ideal, good flow of combat)
So in terms of dodge speed relative to running, yes he did say that running should be more optimal than dodging for covering distances, which implies you should be able to catch a player who dodges if you are sprinting after them. Unless I misunderstand your stance, you believe this makes dodge useless which is false for a couple of reasons:
Also, I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, but if dodges are unable to create distance, then running after them during their dodge should essentially maintain the same distance that existed prior to the dodging. If dodges create distance, but running is able to close that distance, that would mean that the dodges move fast relative to the animation, and that your movement speed is faster than theirs. Otherwise, if your movement speed is the same, they can run away from you after they dodge to maintain the distance they created. Which, again, goes back to the issue where dodging after them becomes the optimal way to maintain effective distance.
Basically, running should be equally optimal for covering distances when compared to dodging. Dodging can move slightly farther, but not enough to matter in any meaningful way. In GW2, you'd shave a tiny fraction of a second off the time it would take to get to your destination if you used both dodges as movement.
Also, I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, but if dodges are unable to create distance, then running after them during their dodge should essentially maintain the same distance that existed prior to the dodging. If dodges create distance, but running is able to close that distance, that would mean that the dodges move fast relative to the animation, and that your movement speed is faster than theirs. Otherwise, if your movement speed is the same, they can run away from you after they dodge to maintain the distance they created. Which, again, goes back to the issue where dodging after them becomes the optimal way to maintain effective distance.
Basically, running should be equally optimal for covering distances when compared to dodging. Dodging can move slightly farther, but not enough to matter in any meaningful way. In GW2, you'd shave a tiny fraction of a second off the time it would take to get to your destination if you used both dodges as movement.
When I said:
So in terms of dodge speed relative to running, yes he did say that running should be more optimal than dodging for covering distances, which implies you should be able to catch a player who dodges if you are sprinting after them.
This is what I was meaning by that-
If running is more opimal than dodge in covering long distances, then that automatically assumes that the properties of dodge/run are tuned to make this be the case. So this was less about explaining how you were wanting to tune the relationship between roll/run and more about the fact that you were supporting running being better at covering distance than rolling, regardless of how that manifests. If the scenario you referenced, about being able to repeatedly dodge and gain that burst of distance just before the running could catch up- then that would mean that running, in fact, isn't more optimal when used over longer distances, which isn't in line with the scenario I was talking about in the above comment you mentioned. In order to allow for dodges to be better at covering distances in bursts, but worse at covering longer distances as quickly as running, this would mean dodges are faster than running, but the endlag is high enough that they would get outpaced by running, at the point past that initial burst of distance- this would not only prevent dodge from being the optimal form of travel over longer distances, but would prevent rolls from being "buffered" (input asap) every time it is available to get that extra burst of distance while the player is already sprinting for max speed, due to the endlag leaving them at a shorter distance compared to the continuous sprint- if this would be the case then cooldown on dodge wouldn't be nearly as important, because the roll would be sub-optimal for covering distances past the initial burst, even when used in conjunction with sprinting- so the cooldown would only be relevant to the availablility of the roll for fullfilling its intended purpose. I don't neccesarily agree with this approach but this would probably be the best way to execute the goal you have in mind.
What does punishable on reaction mean? If you say the dodge is punishable on reaction, does that mean it can be punished if you dodge poorly (ie. dodge for no reason, wasting one of your dodges)?
By "punishable on reaction" I just mean that the player can see that a dodge was used, then react to that visual cue, and then punish the dodge after reacting to the cue, before the dodging player can do anything after their dodge to avoid the punish.
Since traveling takes time, the distance between combatants affects whether or not something can be punished on reaction or not- so within the context of my point in that post about rolls being used as a situationally optimal form of traversing, means that if that is the case then in order for it to fullfill that role then it cant be able to be reacted to and punished for simply being used in any situation where distance between combatants is being manipulated (accordian effect). But for situations where there shouldn't be a need to close distance/create distance (such as when the combatants are within range of the closest "get off me" option, and it becomes more meta do dance in circles around the enemy with unreactable rolls, to bait and punish an aggressive option, than to be aggressive yourself with a hitbox at an advantageous range/distance that you used your unreactable roll as a tool to get too.) This could be the distance where the benefits of being unable to be punished on reaction could be tuned out, such as allowing rolls to be punished on reaction at that very short distance (due to less travel time of the countering option), or having the natural punishment of diminishing returns when used as an infinite gap maintaining tool (if there is aggregate equalized movement).
I do not think dodge rolls should be slower than normal running though. I think they should be the same speed as out of combat movement speed (or if out of combat movement speed isn't different than in-combat movement speed, it should be the same as base movement speed).
Think about running physics for a minute. You cant ask that rolling on the floor be as fast as running lol, unless you are willing to include a half-second stagger at the end to get up.
Thank you for clarifying. If you double dodge in GW2 you save less than a fifth of a second in travel time every 20 seconds when compared to running normally. Technically, it is better to dodge than run to move if you don't use any of your movement abilities, but practically speaking it doesn't make a difference.
I see what you're saying. I'm not a fan of end lag. Being stuck in a skill animation after its effect has already gone off feels pretty clunky. I prefer to have full control over my character at all times. Either way, I would rather rely on movement speed buffs/impairing effects and movement skills to close and create distance than dodge rolls. Guild Wars 2 has the best implementation of dodge rolling I've seen in any MMO. It's very balanced and a skillful mechanic there.
And yes I agree. Dodges being punishable is good and can be achieved by using an animation time that is similar to damaging and crowd control abilities.
I do not think dodge rolls should be slower than normal running though. I think they should be the same speed as out of combat movement speed (or if out of combat movement speed isn't different than in-combat movement speed, it should be the same as base movement speed).
Think about running physics for a minute. You cant ask that rolling on the floor be as fast as running lol, unless you are willing to include a half-second stagger at the end to get up.
Try it
Hopefully they consider dodging more appropriately in terms of body mechanics.
I am good with stamina bring tied to dodging and blocking. But I feel like some classes should be better at it, or more efficient with the stamina than others. An assassin's dodge roll shouldn't use as much stamina as a mage, a ranger block should consume more than a tank's blocking.
Having it this way would also give them another tool for balancing the whole cat and mouse game between classes.
I am good with stamina bring tied to dodging and blocking. But I feel like some classes should be better at it, or more efficient with the stamina than others. An assassin's dodge roll shouldn't use as much stamina as a mage, a ranger block should consume more than a tank's blocking.
Having it this way would also give them another tool for balancing the whole cat and mouse game between classes.
I think it would be good to have the baseline values be the same while having customization options unique to each archetype. Using your examples, an assassin may have the option to spec for higher stamina regen rates when compared to a mage. And, a tank could have the option to spec for reduced resource consumption when blocking. This is easier to balance as the numbers for modifiers can be adjusted without having to redo entire skills and mechanics.
In this game there will be mounts, and casting heals (or drinking potions) will slow you down or stop you. So a runaway meta isn't really an issue since the game is about consensual PvP. In 1v1's some people will definitely run away if losing, and if they are spec'd for it they'll get away. Oh well. If you're fighting about something in the area, you have just won.
I think that what missing from this discussion is "feel" and "fun".
End of dodge lag has a terrible feel. It's similar to having an attack animation end, but still having 1/10th of a second of not being able to move. Maddening, un-fun. Nuff-said.
Dodge being faster than normal move speed has a good feel to it. It's also very important to get out of an AE. Why bother dodging out of the big red circle if you can run out of it at the same speed? I can answer that by saying dodge-roll distance should be unaffected by snares.
Having someone dodge their way out of combat range over and over is not fun. But stamina will cover that in some way.
2 melee guys swinging away at each other don't really care about dodge distance (unless it's NW early on where everyone dodged, ran, drank and ate to heal). They care about iframes and ability timing.
More important for dodge distance is the interaction between kite and counter-kiting. In a game with pulls, charge/leap attacks, various movement abilities, etc, it makes sense that dodge is part of that equation. And for that to happen, it needs to provide distance. Once distance is gained, it's up to he chaser to decide how to catch up.
In this game there will be mounts, and casting heals (or drinking potions) will slow you down or stop you. So a runaway meta isn't really an issue since the game is about consensual PvP. In 1v1's some people will definitely run away if losing, and if they are spec'd for it they'll get away. Oh well. If you're fighting about something in the area, you have just won.
I think that what missing from this discussion is "feel" and "fun".
End of dodge lag has a terrible feel. It's similar to having an attack animation end, but still having 1/10th of a second of not being able to move. Maddening, un-fun. Nuff-said.
Dodge being faster than normal move speed has a good feel to it. It's also very important to get out of an AE. Why bother dodging out of the big red circle if you can run out of it at the same speed? I can answer that by saying dodge-roll distance should be unaffected by snares.
Having someone dodge their way out of combat range over and over is not fun. But stamina will cover that in some way.
2 melee guys swinging away at each other don't really care about dodge distance (unless it's NW early on where everyone dodged, ran, drank and ate to heal). They care about iframes and ability timing.
More important for dodge distance is the interaction between kite and counter-kiting. In a game with pulls, charge/leap attacks, various movement abilities, etc, it makes sense that dodge is part of that equation. And for that to happen, it needs to provide distance. Once distance is gained, it's up to he chaser to decide how to catch up.
In this game there will be mounts, and casting heals (or drinking potions) will slow you down or stop you. So a runaway meta isn't really an issue since the game is about consensual PvP. In 1v1's some people will definitely run away if losing, and if they are spec'd for it they'll get away. Oh well. If you're fighting about something in the area, you have just won.
Regardless of the effects of each of those things, it wouldn't have any impact on a "runaway meta" though. If Mounts/potions are available to both combatants, then it doesn't matter what the upsides and downsides are because the distance between combatantd would be maintained if both parties are equally efficiently in their use of these options. And the issue with a "soft" motivation like objectives/rewards for controlling areas, is that it doesn't eliminate the "runaway meta" tactics, it just dictates where they will occur at- If there is a "runaway meta", then a combatant will know the other is stuck in a confined area, so they will just repeatedly contest the area and then retreat in a hit and run fashion until they can eventually eliminate threats and gain control of that area- which means the problem still exists.
End of dodge lag has a terrible feel. It's similar to having an attack animation end, but still having 1/10th of a second of not being able to move. Maddening, un-fun. Nuff-said.
I agree, the suggestion of dodge lag was to prevent dodge from being the meta for retreating (and thus aggressive) movement- but I think its good for a defensive option to be viable for movement and space control, in addition to having a high sense of control and "agency", as long as it is balanced within the overall system.
2 melee guys swinging away at each other don't really care about dodge distance
Timing and spacing is tied together, traveling takes time frame data wise and effects how interactions play out. They also care when they are trying to play at different preferred ranges, in which case the distance of a defensive option like dodge does matter, since that affects whether or not one guy can get to a safe distance to outrange the other with his swings.
More important for dodge distance is the interaction between kite and counter-kiting. In a game with pulls, charge/leap attacks, various movement abilities, etc, it makes sense that dodge is part of that equation. And for that to happen, it needs to provide distance. Once distance is gained, it's up to he chaser to decide how to catch up.
Very much agree on this- but there is more to it than just having those interactions exist- when rolling is equal on both sides the tool becomes more about distance maintanence, instead of contributing to kiting/counterkiting- so it matters in terms of the emphasis and weight that the combat system places on the distance maintanence vs. the distance manipulation, to create a good flow between getting to your opponent and capitalizing on your advantageous position.
Comments
Though i feel there some be some i frames im fine with less and for distance to be more so used to avoid dmg. Iframe spam gets ugh when people chain them constantly.
I do not want to live through ESO dodge roll spam again. I really think that for dodge to be an actual and proper dodge, that there needs to be some meaning on the skills that they're dodging as well.
If Ashes can have the best combat in the MMO market, why not push for something non-generic and well thought out?
Not to mention I keep in mind that theres limited skills so all of the actions available to a player need to be thought out and meaningful. iFrames and generic gap closers are not meaningful button presses.
Yeah looks like fun combat-
From your explanation and the clips you posted, its really not all that different from what I suggested.
The main differences between that and what I proposed is that-
1. Rolling isnt optimal for travel
2. The roles of abilities and movement are reversed
in terms of distance manipulation vs distance maintanence
#1 Rolling as a situationally optimal form of travel (whether or not this is good or bad in my opinion is dependent on how rolls are designed.)
A) if dodges are not punishable on reaction
If this is the case then I think it could be a good thing to allow for rolling be situationally optimal- to have a more viable way of safely moving forward, which would be less how it would work if basic movement is more optimal for travel, since basic movement would then outpace someone who is using rolls as a safe pursuit option- forcing them to use basic movement to keep relative distance control while progressing forward- which would be more risky to an aggressive player due to the neccessity of timing blocks/rolls as they move forward with basic movement- rather than being able to keep pace while still being defensive, through using an forward roll.
Yes, allowing for rolls to be situationally optimal for movement would make timing/risk less required in order to move forward in a defensive way- however, this would then become equal and balanced to the level of timing/risk required to deny space in a defensive way using a traditional hitbox design (the ability to counter aggressive movement with a stationary swing)- and this would be healthy to the pacing of the combat through better balancing aggressive and passive styles. If there is going to be a skill check to pushing forward safely (through using basic movement and timing a defensive option), then this needs to be reproduced in the defensive denial of space (hitbox design), otherwise the combat pacing will be sub-optimal.
B- If dodges are punishable on reaction
If the rolls are punishable on reaction then there would be too great of a risk to design them as the optimal forward movement option, otherwise the viability of aggressive styles would be reduced- of which, at that point yeah it would be better to design basic movement as optimal forward movement (which could be yout less than 10% idea potentially) but I think this would still be inferior to a dodge that cannot be punished on reaction, and is situationally optimal for forward movement- while avoiding dodge spam through having diminishing returns for both combatants (if there is equalized dodging) or diminishing returns for just the retreating combatant (if there is unequalized dodging)- which would depend on the aggregate gap closing design/relationship with other combat movement options/skills.
#2 The time spent on closing/creating gaps vs maintaining relative distance
This one isn't really a huge deal, its more of a minor difference of whether or not the focus is on maintining relative distance with rolls and closing/creating relative gaps with abilities- vs. if the focus is on closing/creating relative gaps with movement/rolls and maintaing relative distance with abilities.
This only really effects the emphasis of the gameplay on disadvantage/advantage state vs neutral state. If gap closing is tied to abilities, then since they are temporarily available you spend less time playing neutral than maintaining your advantage state with equalized rolls/movement- vs unequalized movement/rolls being capable of gap closing, which since they are always available would emphasize neutral state, with equalized abilities being your temporary means of maintaining advantage state.
So even though that does look fun, I feel like conceptually there are some improvements that could be made to that system.
It depends on what you mean by "does not create space".
A- If you mean that it literaly does not move your character that would be a false conclusion, because both basic movement and dodge could propel the character forward but at an equal rate.
B- If you mean "does not create space" in terms of relative to the opponent who is using a different type of movement- then yes, he would like rolls to provide other benefits instead of being the best way to travel- because he is saying that dosges as an optimal means of travel results in dodges being neccessary for pursuing fleeing enemies, in situations where there is no other movement option available that is more effective at traveling than dodges are.
C- If you mean "does not create space" in terms of relative to the opponent when they use the same option- then that is being discussed at the moment.
Again- the merits of these are not solely based on overall balance, it is about the type of experience each of these things provide.
"A running player can walk to them" not sure what this means, do you mean he can stop running and then walk? If so, not sure how you can reach that conclusion because he didn't commnent on the dodge speed relative to walking unless I missed it. He only commented on the dodge speed relative to running.
So in terms of dodge speed relative to running, yes he did say that running should be more optimal than dodging for covering distances, which implies you should be able to catch a player who dodges if you are sprinting after them. Unless I misunderstand your stance, you believe this makes dodge useless which is false for a couple of reasons:
1. There are other properties of evasive options other than distance traveled, such as invincibility frames for example, to give that evasive options a meaninful evasive purpose
2. There are different forms of "distance covered"- to where yeah a dodge could be irrelevant over a long distance, but it could still be the optimal movement option for a quick burst of distance coverage, only to then fall behind sprint in distance covered as soon as the endlag kicks in- this is all based on the frame data
These are points to clarify what the actual topic is, not neccesarily who is right/wrong
What does punishable on reaction mean? If you say the dodge is punishable on reaction, does that mean it can be punished if you dodge poorly (ie. dodge for no reason, wasting one of your dodges)?
In Guild Wars 2, if someone wastes a dodge, I can time an ability to hit them the instant their evade frames end due to the way the animation time of the dodge (.75s) lines up with or is slightly longer than the animation time of most offensive abilities in the game (.5s-.75s). However, if someone dodges an impactful skill, they get a lot of defensive value out of it. It's a good system that rewards proper skill usage.
Also, most classes in GW2 have 2 dodges. It's an endurance (stamina) system where you can regen enough resource to dodge every 10s with the base regen speed. They have experimented with 1 dodge classes and 3 dodge classes multiple times over the years. 1 dodge is way too easy to punish because the instant they use it, you can pressure them hard after and force other defensive cooldowns extremely quickly. 3 dodges is too difficult to punish because they will almost always have a dodge available so it's difficult to find windows to punish them unless you can force at least 2 dodges out of the way before you commit. 2 dodges is the sweet spot.
One aspect of dodging in combat that no one has brought up yet, is that it's actually bad to roll offensively if the movement is too far. For example:
With dodge rolls moving a farther distance:
- You are in melee range of your attacker.
- They use a high damage/crowd control ability.
- You roll through them to avoid it but your roll moves you too far and now you're out of range to counterattack unless you can close the distance. (not ideal, feels clunky)
- An example of this is GW2 daredevil's dodge. Their dodge travels a farther distance, so after they dodge away, they can only follow up with a ranged attack or a gap closer.
With dodge rolls moving a similar distance to base move speed (ie. GW2 dodge system):- You are in melee range of your attacker.
- They use a high damage/crowd control ability.
- You roll through them to avoid it but you're in range to counterattack. (ideal, good flow of combat)
Also, I don't know if I'm misunderstanding, but if dodges are unable to create distance, then running after them during their dodge should essentially maintain the same distance that existed prior to the dodging. If dodges create distance, but running is able to close that distance, that would mean that the dodges move fast relative to the animation, and that your movement speed is faster than theirs. Otherwise, if your movement speed is the same, they can run away from you after they dodge to maintain the distance they created. Which, again, goes back to the issue where dodging after them becomes the optimal way to maintain effective distance.Basically, running should be equally optimal for covering distances when compared to dodging. Dodging can move slightly farther, but not enough to matter in any meaningful way. In GW2, you'd shave a tiny fraction of a second off the time it would take to get to your destination if you used both dodges as movement.
When I said:
This is what I was meaning by that-
If running is more opimal than dodge in covering long distances, then that automatically assumes that the properties of dodge/run are tuned to make this be the case. So this was less about explaining how you were wanting to tune the relationship between roll/run and more about the fact that you were supporting running being better at covering distance than rolling, regardless of how that manifests. If the scenario you referenced, about being able to repeatedly dodge and gain that burst of distance just before the running could catch up- then that would mean that running, in fact, isn't more optimal when used over longer distances, which isn't in line with the scenario I was talking about in the above comment you mentioned. In order to allow for dodges to be better at covering distances in bursts, but worse at covering longer distances as quickly as running, this would mean dodges are faster than running, but the endlag is high enough that they would get outpaced by running, at the point past that initial burst of distance- this would not only prevent dodge from being the optimal form of travel over longer distances, but would prevent rolls from being "buffered" (input asap) every time it is available to get that extra burst of distance while the player is already sprinting for max speed, due to the endlag leaving them at a shorter distance compared to the continuous sprint- if this would be the case then cooldown on dodge wouldn't be nearly as important, because the roll would be sub-optimal for covering distances past the initial burst, even when used in conjunction with sprinting- so the cooldown would only be relevant to the availablility of the roll for fullfilling its intended purpose. I don't neccesarily agree with this approach but this would probably be the best way to execute the goal you have in mind.
By "punishable on reaction" I just mean that the player can see that a dodge was used, then react to that visual cue, and then punish the dodge after reacting to the cue, before the dodging player can do anything after their dodge to avoid the punish.
Since traveling takes time, the distance between combatants affects whether or not something can be punished on reaction or not- so within the context of my point in that post about rolls being used as a situationally optimal form of traversing, means that if that is the case then in order for it to fullfill that role then it cant be able to be reacted to and punished for simply being used in any situation where distance between combatants is being manipulated (accordian effect). But for situations where there shouldn't be a need to close distance/create distance (such as when the combatants are within range of the closest "get off me" option, and it becomes more meta do dance in circles around the enemy with unreactable rolls, to bait and punish an aggressive option, than to be aggressive yourself with a hitbox at an advantageous range/distance that you used your unreactable roll as a tool to get too.) This could be the distance where the benefits of being unable to be punished on reaction could be tuned out, such as allowing rolls to be punished on reaction at that very short distance (due to less travel time of the countering option), or having the natural punishment of diminishing returns when used as an infinite gap maintaining tool (if there is aggregate equalized movement).
Think about running physics for a minute. You cant ask that rolling on the floor be as fast as running lol, unless you are willing to include a half-second stagger at the end to get up.
Try it
Thank you for clarifying. If you double dodge in GW2 you save less than a fifth of a second in travel time every 20 seconds when compared to running normally. Technically, it is better to dodge than run to move if you don't use any of your movement abilities, but practically speaking it doesn't make a difference.
I see what you're saying. I'm not a fan of end lag. Being stuck in a skill animation after its effect has already gone off feels pretty clunky. I prefer to have full control over my character at all times. Either way, I would rather rely on movement speed buffs/impairing effects and movement skills to close and create distance than dodge rolls. Guild Wars 2 has the best implementation of dodge rolling I've seen in any MMO. It's very balanced and a skillful mechanic there.
And yes I agree. Dodges being punishable is good and can be achieved by using an animation time that is similar to damaging and crowd control abilities.
Hopefully they consider dodging more appropriately in terms of body mechanics.
Having it this way would also give them another tool for balancing the whole cat and mouse game between classes.
I think it would be good to have the baseline values be the same while having customization options unique to each archetype. Using your examples, an assassin may have the option to spec for higher stamina regen rates when compared to a mage. And, a tank could have the option to spec for reduced resource consumption when blocking. This is easier to balance as the numbers for modifiers can be adjusted without having to redo entire skills and mechanics.
I think that what missing from this discussion is "feel" and "fun".
End of dodge lag has a terrible feel. It's similar to having an attack animation end, but still having 1/10th of a second of not being able to move. Maddening, un-fun. Nuff-said.
Dodge being faster than normal move speed has a good feel to it. It's also very important to get out of an AE. Why bother dodging out of the big red circle if you can run out of it at the same speed? I can answer that by saying dodge-roll distance should be unaffected by snares.
Having someone dodge their way out of combat range over and over is not fun. But stamina will cover that in some way.
2 melee guys swinging away at each other don't really care about dodge distance (unless it's NW early on where everyone dodged, ran, drank and ate to heal). They care about iframes and ability timing.
More important for dodge distance is the interaction between kite and counter-kiting. In a game with pulls, charge/leap attacks, various movement abilities, etc, it makes sense that dodge is part of that equation. And for that to happen, it needs to provide distance. Once distance is gained, it's up to he chaser to decide how to catch up.
Damn bro. I agree with all you're points.
Regardless of the effects of each of those things, it wouldn't have any impact on a "runaway meta" though. If Mounts/potions are available to both combatants, then it doesn't matter what the upsides and downsides are because the distance between combatantd would be maintained if both parties are equally efficiently in their use of these options. And the issue with a "soft" motivation like objectives/rewards for controlling areas, is that it doesn't eliminate the "runaway meta" tactics, it just dictates where they will occur at- If there is a "runaway meta", then a combatant will know the other is stuck in a confined area, so they will just repeatedly contest the area and then retreat in a hit and run fashion until they can eventually eliminate threats and gain control of that area- which means the problem still exists.
I agree, the suggestion of dodge lag was to prevent dodge from being the meta for retreating (and thus aggressive) movement- but I think its good for a defensive option to be viable for movement and space control, in addition to having a high sense of control and "agency", as long as it is balanced within the overall system.
Timing and spacing is tied together, traveling takes time frame data wise and effects how interactions play out. They also care when they are trying to play at different preferred ranges, in which case the distance of a defensive option like dodge does matter, since that affects whether or not one guy can get to a safe distance to outrange the other with his swings.
Very much agree on this- but there is more to it than just having those interactions exist- when rolling is equal on both sides the tool becomes more about distance maintanence, instead of contributing to kiting/counterkiting- so it matters in terms of the emphasis and weight that the combat system places on the distance maintanence vs. the distance manipulation, to create a good flow between getting to your opponent and capitalizing on your advantageous position.